[Availability] DSL in rural areas

[Availability] DSL in rural areas
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » AT&T » AT&T Southeast » [Availability] DSL in rural areas
page: 1 · 2 · 3
noservice @ 25th Sep 07:05AM:
[Availability] DSL in rural areas

I can't understand why ATT refuses to offer DSL services to all rural areas. I am only about 10 miles at most from town and from DSL service. I have been with ATT for years yet they refuse to offer DSL in my area. Their wireless won't work even though I have a cell tower within site of my home. The other offer is Hughes Net which may be great but is extremely expensive. I feel we are being cheated. We pay much more for phone service than homes only a few miles away yet we get absolutely No benefits.
reply

jimbopalmer @ 25th Sep 07:27AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

As I understand it, DSL speed falls to Zero by 18,000 feet, (as the wires run, not a straight line)

You can use this page to find where your nearest CO is.

»/comap

If it is more than 3 miles, you are out of luck for DSL. (as I read it, the nearest AT&T CO with DSL is in Kirkville, Lancaster is served by Verizon, not AT&T)

»www.chpl.net/access/firecracker/ is 'near' you, according to this:»www.onelasvegas.com/wireless/KY.html
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.
reply

NetFixer @ 25th Sep 10:32AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Allow me to play the part of the devil's advocate. ;)

Let us say AT&T were to lay fiber to your front lawn and setup a DSLAM equipped RT. How many potential customers are there within a two mile radius? How many of those customers do you think would want and order DSL service? If you think that there are enough customers actually wanting DSL service, go door to door and ask them to try sign up for AT&T DSL service, and to request to be put on a waiting/notification list. AT&T is not going to install the infrastructure unless there is a good probability that they will get a reasonable return on investment. Making AT&T aware that there are enough customers waiting for service is a proactive step you can take.
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
reply

decifal @ 25th Sep 02:36PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by NetFixer :

Um, i'm counting 120 people services from my RT that from what i've been told by techs, they'd just need to install a DSLAM to setup our area and maybe condition some lines.. Do we have it? NO! NO, we do not!

It doesn't always run down to amount of people within the distance...
reply

NetFixer @ 25th Sep 03:42PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by decifal :

Um, i'm counting 120 people services from my RT...

It doesn't always run down to amount of people within the distance...

No, the number of people that would actually be expected to subscribe to the service is what would count. There may be 120 people serviced from your RT, but how many of them are actually reasonable candidates for DSL service?
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
reply

decifal @ 25th Sep 03:56PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

I may need to do a petition, but i've talked to about 50ish house's.. Cannot remember the exact number and they were all interested in it.. And some even have wildblue or hughes net and hate it.. They would swap in a heartbeat! I've asked them to put their names in the website to be notified when/if things were to be developed.. But as you see by my comments, nothing has as of yet... I donno if I need to enter them personally on a weekily basis (( phycotic I know,but I really want the service ) Or maybe even find an address to write to plead our case....
reply

jimbopalmer @ 25th Sep 05:05PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

On the positive side, unlike the OP, your town is served by AT&T. And the nearest CO actually has DSL capability.

»www.state.tn.us/tra/ is your choice if AT&T is not being helpful.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.
reply

NetFixer @ 25th Sep 05:24PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by jimbopalmer :

»www.state.tn.us/tra/ is your choice if AT&T is not being helpful.

First, DSL is not a regulated service, so contacting the TRA would accomplish nothing.

Second, the TRA is about as toothless a tiger as any regulated service provider could hope to have overseeing their operations anyway.
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
reply

katylied @ 25th Sep 08:04PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

NetFixer's ideas and explanations here are right on.
Get your group organized and together.
Anyone paying good money for crappy satellite or dialup should gleefully sign on to the group.
The only thing I would add to what NetFixer suggested is the group should become well known to your state and national representatives and senators.
Congressmen bringing up your group name to ATT or Verizon can help.
Beyond their set plans to provide service where they can make the most money, squeaky wheels will get dsl before the quiet ones.
reply

Shadow01 @ 25th Sep 10:33PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by noservice :

I can't understand why ATT refuses to offer DSL services to all rural areas. I am only about 10 miles at most from town and from DSL service. I have been with ATT for years yet they refuse to offer DSL in my area. Their wireless won't work even though I have a cell tower within site of my home. The other offer is Hughes Net which may be great but is extremely expensive. I feel we are being cheated. We pay much more for phone service than homes only a few miles away yet we get absolutely No benefits.

What monthly rate are you willing to pay for said service?
--
GUN CONTROL:
using both hands
reply

SpottedCat @ 26th Sep 10:15AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

>First, DSL is not a regulated service,

This is something that should change, in my opinion.

Internet service has become almost essential, and within another ten years, will be as crucial as phone service.

Right now, no matter where you are, the telco has to run a phone line out to you. It is paid for by the universal service charge.

I would gladly pay a little higher charge if Internet services were added to the requirement.
reply

anon @ 26th Sep 10:44AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Netfixer has explained the situation very well.Dsl should be a regulated service delivered at the lowest cost-available to all.. At&t should have full responsibility for it - and no "competitors" taking a regulatory free ride on the equipment they build. But of course that would be a MONOPOLY. Until that time let Chaos and the free market reign supreme. Netfixer thanks again... D says "HELLo" ...
reply

NetFixer @ 26th Sep 12:20PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by Gflash :

Netfixer has explained the situation very well.Dsl should be a regulated service delivered at the lowest cost-available to all.. At&t should have full responsibility for it - and no "competitors" taking a regulatory free ride on the equipment they build. But of course that would be a MONOPOLY. Until that time let Chaos and the free market reign supreme. Netfixer thanks again... D says "HELLo" ...

Actually the "competitors" are leasing AT&T copper lines and/or space in an AT&T DSLAM (unless they have their own DSLAM, and in that case they are renting space in the CO, and are still paying for the line use). This would in effect make them AT&T "customers". A similar situation exists for T-1 circuits where AT&T as the ILEC is paid for supplying their part of the overall circuit. And yes, the free market should indeed reign supreme.

For some of us, life continued after January 1, 1984
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
reply

anon @ 26th Sep 02:25PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Fine with me.No company should be forced to assume complete responsibly for a service, risk their capital to build the plant -then share the plant with other competing companies that pay rates lower than break even par as set by the government. In lineshare setups the data clec pays nothing .Co rents are a joke. At&t is called to answer for data problems not associated with the line. Predictably - the wiz bang competitors do not want to build the plant and lease it to AT&T -They know there is no money to be made unless you are using someone else equipment and pushing the problems back on the owners- with government help.
reply

decifal @ 27th Sep 07:58PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Omg, did Gfash and Netfixer become brothers?!? Lord.

My issue is, baby bells/att all recieved public funds to build their networks.. And they should do so. To everyone.. And yes, they should be allowed to be the ones making the profit on it being they will be setting it up etc, its only right.. Just as long as they don't lobby to prevent any one from competing in any areas to offer service of their own from their own equipment...

If they have areas that they consider unprofitable and refuse to upgrade them, they should consider selling the maintenance rights to another provider willing to take the risk.. Some case's, it would lose money, some it would rank in money..

My issue is that broadband regardless of what soo called experts declare, is fastly becoming a way of life. And this is fine, but it really needs to be developed for everyone to have an affordable opportunity to experience the internet as it should be.. Meaning no low FAP CAPPED satellite and EVDO internet should be allowed to count as said service.. Areas that are super remote say in the farming flatlands I can see the arguement of non landline development, and pursuit of highspeed reliable wireless to be a viable option. Especially being you could literally only have one house in 25 miles for anything...

This isn't the "always" circumstance however.. There are subdivisions and communities alike being either ignored/overlooked/or whatever the excuse of the year is for services when they shouldn't by any rights.. If they want to be a utility provider, then they should go with it all the way.. Not cherry pick, which is often the case.. You cannot denie this simply because of the buildouts i've witnessed in dickson Tn alone.. There cannot be anymore than 3 house's on one VRAD that I know of in one location, and in another location, a DSLAM services maybe 5 homes in a realistic range.... Profitable? Or filling in a zipcode buildout to claim it serviced to the FCC?
reply

NetFixer @ 27th Sep 08:38PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by decifal :

Omg, did Gfash and Netfixer become brothers?!? Lord.

No, but I have been officially notified by the powers that be to not pick on poor defenseless Gflash. I am therefore cutting him a bit of slack (as long as he behaves himself). :hmm:
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
reply

anon @ 27th Sep 11:30PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Where do they come up with the idea that the government or the public gave the phone companies the money to build the networks? This is a lie. Some of the plant has been there at least 30 years - predating any internet. The phone system was built with stockholder funds and bonds.It is privately owned by anyone who wants to invest in it. The government allowed a monopoly status only so the capital would not be lost.-protecting the phone co/investors. They also limited any profit to 10% or less.-protecting the public/consumers. No other business ran on such a low profit margin and the customer had the best equipment at lowest cost. The era of competition and deregulation has expanded service and vastly driven up rates.It has caused tremendous waste through duplication of services and waste of capital. Not to mention the fraud and outright theft (Worldcom,Qwest Adelphia ,etc.) that was never possible under a regulated monopoly. If data is so critical -why not give it the status of a utility and take it out of the reach of the marketplace manipulations . guarantee access to everyone -like pots . Set minimum speeds and repair standards. Set standards as to the size of the installation and maintenance workforce retained. set the profit at not more than 10% of the construction cost. Last - grant monopoly status to the owners to prevent other companies from interfering in the process. The whole problem should be owned by one company If other companies have innovations that are cheaper or better use the monopoly status to see they are incorporated uniformly through the whole system -and compensate them.. At&t has already served the country for over 125 years in this way . A regulated monopoly on data would have advantages to everyone but the companies that want to compete openly in that field. -By taking out the profitability. On the other hand the chaos of competition is refreshing.It has been a long time since things were this fubar. 1896 I think .
reply

compuguybna @ 30th Sep 05:17PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

EXACTLY where is this DSL waiting list?

I dont see it on the AT&T or Bellsouth page.

Can you provide a DIRECT link for the DSL waiting list????
reply

NetFixer @ 30th Sep 05:33PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by compuguybna :

EXACTLY where is this DSL waiting list?

I dont see it on the AT&T or Bellsouth page.

Can you provide a DIRECT link for the DSL waiting list????

You have to go to »www.bellsouth.com/consumer/inets···dex.html and attempt to sign up for the service. Unless there have been som recent changes, you should be given the option to be put on a notification list if service is not available to your location. I don't have a non-qualified number to check it with, so I can't guarantee that AT&T has not screwed up and removed that option.
--
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
reply

compuguybna @ 30th Sep 05:48PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

That doesn't work....Hasn't worked in over a year......

It DOES take you to a page where you can provide your information, BUT..... there is no way to SUBMIT the information.....No "click here", no "submit", no "enter"...... Its a dead end.

I've called Bellsouth several times about it, and they always say they'll note of it, but it never gets corrected . . . .

Guess we're screwed in rural america. Funny thing is, people 4.4 miles away have it, I pass the junction boxes everyday. I can see where the cable routes down into the box.

said by NetFixer :

said by compuguybna :

EXACTLY where is this DSL waiting list?

I dont see it on the AT&T or Bellsouth page.

Can you provide a DIRECT link for the DSL waiting list????

compuguybna @ 30th Sep 05:52PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Same here. I have three AT&T towers 2 miles from my house, I can walk out my back yard and see them at a distance. Unfortunately, even my AT&T cell phone doesn't get good reception down here.......Wireless 3G is a joke. it only picks up the EDGE network, and like I said in another post DSL is only 4.4 miles away from here.

There are at least 40 houses in a 2 mile radius here who'd gladly signup for DSL......

anon @ 30th Sep 08:32PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Don't wait to get on a list .Order it. If they can't do it someone will have to explain why it is not ready yet. If you see three towers chances are two of them are not AT&T. Multiple towers in one location is a waste.When AT&T buys another wireless company they move the redundent towers to where they can provide better service.
reply

compuguybna @ 30th Sep 09:08PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

You CAN'T order it! It says its unavailable!!!!

i'd say they are all three AT&T cell phone towers.....Surrounded by a big fence a big building that says AT&T on it...

said by Gflash :

Don't wait to get on a list .Order it. If they can't do it someone will have to explain why it is not ready yet. If you see three towers chances are two of them are not AT&T. Multiple towers in one location is a waste.When AT&T buys another wireless company they move the redundent towers to where they can provide better service.

jimbopalmer @ 30th Sep 10:20PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

I have to say, if you see towers, and your cell phone is weak, why do you suspect they are cell phone towers? I suspect they are backhaul towers.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.
reply

compuguybna @ 30th Sep 11:30PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Obviously they aren't benefitting me any....

Sorry cell service, No 3G, and DSL 1.5 in town is what we got(and I ain't in town!) LOL

said by jimbopalmer :

I have to say, if you see towers, and your cell phone is weak, why do you suspect they are cell phone towers? I suspect they are backhaul towers.

anon @ 2nd Oct 10:58AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

I live in Bon Aqua, TN and have waited for YEARS for DSL. I really wish there was something I could do "get the ball rolling". Dial-up is soooooooooooooo slow.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 01:21PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Yeah, this is the true post of a filthy, greedy, selfish person. Just the same attitude that existed in the heart of Bernard Madoff among others. And it is one of the things that is slowly tearing our society apart. A corporation has to make a profit of course. Not to mention provide a reasonable return to their investors. But this Bull Hockey about creating protected monopolies is a bunch of crap. Unfortunately, I cannot use the words I want to use and because it is not tasteful beside. Oh, and then of course act like a whiney baby victim about any possibility that another company might pay profitable rates to lease lines. I am sure though that there are companies that would take advantage of the situation especially if aided by regulations. However, leaving everything to one monopolistic company is only for the people within that company that are wringing their greasy hands to ink out every penny they can from customers, investors, and from the government. Yes, from the government too. These guys are exactly the same kind that ran the banks into the ground. Get as much money for themselves as fast as they can at the expense of everyone else and then do it again by getting government handouts (bailouts). No sympathy here. Yes, I am furious. I have a right to be.
reply

compuguybna @ 2nd Oct 11:47AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

I live within 4 miles of DSL. I can see where the last DSLAM is and where the fiber runs into the box...Yet, they wont run it out another 4 miles. that could serve at least 70 people.....

The link to be added to the waiting list on the bellsouth page is DEAD, because it offers no 'SUBMIT' button...
You can enter in all your information, but there is no way to send it.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 12:23PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Try the AT&T adsl page.
reply

compuguybna @ 2nd Oct 12:51PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

doesnt work . . . . it takes you back to the bellsouth.com

but thanks for trying . . .
reply

Shadow01 @ 2nd Oct 01:35PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by jpkeels :

Yeah, this is the true post of a filthy, greedy, selfish person. Just the same attitude that existed in the heart of Bernard Madoff among others. And it is one of the things that is slowly tearing our society apart. A corporation has to make a profit of course. Not to mention provide a reasonable return to their investors. But this Bull Hockey about creating protected monopolies is a bunch of crap. Unfortunately, I cannot use the words I want to use and because it is not tasteful beside. Oh, and then of course act like a whiney baby victim about any possibility that another company might pay profitable rates to lease lines. I am sure though that there are companies that would take advantage of the situation especially if aided by regulations. However, leaving everything to one monopolistic company is only for the people within that company that are wringing their greasy hands to ink out every penny they can from customers, investors, and from the government. Yes, from the government too. These guys are exactly the same kind that ran the banks into the ground. Get as much money for themselves as fast as they can at the expense of everyone else and then do it again by getting government handouts (bailouts). No sympathy here. Yes, I am furious. I have a right to be.

How about you put your money up and start an open network that has world class speeds with no caps and no throttling of any type of file transport along with it being a dumb pipe for any ISP to resell that asks? Everyone wants the low cost open service, but no one is willing to be the one that puts the money up to build it. This is your opportunity to step up and be the man... Two things people forget, you are not "entitled" to internet access nor are you "entitled" to broadband. If you can't get it, and you have to have it, then build it. Peoples perceived entitlement to broadband is not different than me being entitled to a Ferrari as my primary mode of transportation.
--
GUN CONTROL:
using both hands
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 09:47PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

You just don't understand the concept-- the difference between Madoff and the phone company is that the people actually benefited from the protected monopoly. It is one of the few kinds of social/business experiments that actually worked .Society as a whole benefited by putting communications beyond the reach of the capitalists like Madoff. He is a thief..and the people who have wanted competition seek to profit by it. A regulated monopoly has its profit margin set lower by the government than any other company would in a free market. The lower costs are passed along to the consumer.They cannot raise the profit above 10%. HAS the cost of communications dropped with the rise of competition? - Hell no! Everyone pays more just as the capitalists want it. Go read your bill - then tell me how wrong I am.
reply

compuguybna @ 3rd Oct 12:13AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

UMMMMM. you guys are getting a LITTLE off topic here!
reply

NormanS @ 3rd Oct 06:54AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by decifal :

My issue is, baby bells/att all recieved public funds to build their networks.

Actually, they mostly did not. Some Federal money, under limiting conditions, during the ~~ere,~~ era of rural electrification, but nothing else. All privately funded from 1880 to the present.

The most the telcos got from the government was tax breaks. I know that there are semanticists who claim that money not collected as taxes is the same as public funding, but it is not.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
reply

anon @ 3rd Oct 10:23AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Not really -- competition has slowed the spread of broadband. With no competition a regulated monopoly can invest money assured that they will recover the costs . In your situation that would mean one celltower or dslam that was guaranteed to work versus three or none that don't.-and a a lower price. Any tax breaks a regulated monopoly gets goes back into building more equipment and hiring more techs to get more people online. It could be that your adsl service wound up in some CLEC CEO'S bank account somewhere- but not at AT&T because they are regulated.
reply

decifal @ 3rd Oct 11:19AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by NormanS :

said by decifal :

My issue is, baby bells/att all recieved public funds to build their networks.

I recall a bill back in the 90's granting I believe roughly 4 billion dollars for them to "upgrade" their entire infrastructure.. Signed by President Clinton. Goal that was theorized was that everyone would have fiber from this in the end...
reply

NormanS @ 3rd Oct 04:29PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by decifal :

I recall a bill back in the 90's granting I believe roughly 4 billion dollars for them to "upgrade" their entire infrastructure.. Signed by President Clinton. Goal that was theorized was that everyone would have fiber from this in the end...

I am confident that no Federal money was allocated for disbursement to the telcos under that bill. That would be the tax break I alluded to. In exchange for a promise to apply the savings toward infrastructure upgrade, the telcos would pay lower taxes. However, it is not clear to me that the government and telcos were on the same sheet of music. It appears that the Congress (or somebody) was expecting an FTTH build out, but that is not what the telcos actually did, or even wanted to do.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
reply

anon @ 3rd Oct 11:02PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

What could you do with four billion dollars applied to the whole USA? Clean up after a hurricane? Switches cost a million and towers cost a million. On the face of it it seems that not much could be done except replace defective cable sections . Government mandated reductions in charges for service slashed the maintenance budget --causing a need for "upgrading"- or what was once called routine maintenance
reply

compuguybna @ 5th Oct 02:20PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

last I read....the estimate had climed to about $350 billion for what is trying to be achieved.
reply

anon @ 16th Oct 05:03PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Dont Feel bad i only live 3 Miles out of town and still no DSL service from AT&T they piss me off.
reply

jimbopalmer @ 17th Oct 12:10AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

The 18,000 feet limit (as the wires run, not straight line) is a technical limit, not a company policy.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.
reply

anon @ 17th Oct 09:28AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

A petition might help but I know of one nearby that 100+ neighbors signed that has yet to see results from ATT. Right now att is putting most of it's resources into Uverse. They don't care too much about pots or even dsl. The company did get or will get federal money to expand fiber in rural areas based on recent legislation but what they'll do with that money who knows.
reply

NormanS @ 17th Oct 07:27PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by nobody :

The company did get or will get federal money to expand fiber in rural areas based on recent legislation but what they'll do with that money who knows.

They have received no money from the U.S. Government, to date, for any reason. They have received tax breaks, in the past; but I will contend that money not paid (as a tax) is not the same thing as money received (as a grant).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
reply

anon @ 28th Oct 10:02AM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

All that remains is sat, almost as bad as dial up only like ten times the cost and not even constant. The cable trucks have passed my house about ten times, and have requested a survey about six times it always the "We cant expand anymore that way" What about the office you have no seven miles away. WTF I am one and a half miles from dsl and charter cable. I hate all the conglomerates they should get off their ass pull out the dildo and get services to jo blow
reply

anon @ 28th Oct 07:53PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

All this whining about service. NOBODY bitched when the utilities boards kept the prices frozen for years . The money the telephone company didn't get then - is now the service you don't have. In states that have had higher prices the adsl equipment is already there and Uverse is expanding rapidly .
reply

simpsomatt @ 30th Oct 01:28PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

Gflash - Are you saying the higher rates people in some states paid for regulated phone service subsidized the installation of DSL/Uverse? Is that legal?
reply

jimbopalmer @ 30th Oct 02:39PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

said by scrwd by all :

All that remains is sat, almost as bad as dial up only like ten times the cost and not even constant.

1. Dial up
2. ISDN
3. Cellular Broadband
4. Satellite
5. Terrestrial wireless WISP
6. DSL
7. Cable

I swear few of you are looking at more than 4 of these.

»www.wispdirectory.com/
»www.onelasvegas.com/wireless/compare.html
»www.wireless.att.com/coveragevie···ype=data
»coverage.sprintpcs.com/IMPACT.js···ayPhones
»www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/Cove···%20EIGHT
»isdn.theispguide.com/
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.
reply

anon @ 30th Oct 04:54PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

In a way. The profits made in the higher rate states kept the plant in better condition. The same wires that have to be used for Uverse .Of course it is legal. If there is no Adsl or Uverse to start with the phone company "subsidizes" the service by putting capital into it. How else could it be done? In places where the public has been willing to pay for the equipment the service is now in place. Places where the the state public utilities fight every rate increase in the interest of cheaper service are now backlogged with improvements that have to be done before Uverse can be installed. You don't get what you don't pay for.
reply

decifal @ 31st Oct 12:58PM:
Re: [Availability] DSL in rural areas

ISDN--have it use it, hate it, but deal with it
Cellular broadband-- extremely moody in my area, unreliable through trees
Satellite, -standard issues, latency, high price for service/caps/lame excuse for broadband
Dialup--Really? you serious?
Wisp- NON in area
DSL- RT not equiped with DSLAM, nor VRAD
Cable-- withen two miles, called, surveyed, not willing to take close's route due to limited homes, however, alternate route more than makes up for it, but they ignore it for some reason..

said by jimbopalmer :

said by scrwd by all :

All that remains is sat, almost as bad as dial up only like ten times the cost and not even constant.